Probably well worth watching for an ablation procedure

Oh lord, another radiation scare.....

by crustyg - 2020-03-10 13:39:43

The flight crew on long-haul airlines get more radiation in their annual flying than a single patient gets from the X-rays used during fluoroscopy.  A CT scan of any part of your body is *way* more radiation than the short period of usage for an ablation.

Our bodies are *all* radioactive - we have an isotope of potassium that decays - and our cells have evolved over millenia to cope with ionising radiation, we have automatic repair systems for our DNA.  They aren't perfect, the damage from excessive UV at the beach, damage from viruses, damage from the chemicals we put into the environment can overcome them.

But really this is just scare mongering.

For the *staff* doing the procedures, assisting, the safety precautions make perfect sense.

A more useful recording might have been his figures for success after ablation for AFib (not AFlut).

Thanks

by crustyg - 2020-03-10 17:03:49

Thanks for the additional info ar_vin.

What I was trying to say in my clumsy way, was that if I were considering an ablation for AFib (still very much a possibility in my personal timeline) I would be *far* more interested in the success rate of the operator than whether it would require 55min of fluoroscopy versus 21min.

Yes, ionising radiation is something to avoid when possible but this video is heavily biased against what really matters.  In my opinion, with some science behind it.